Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district, alleging that she was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court held that plaintiff satisfied the court's liberal notice of appeal requirements and therefore considered the appeal on the merits. The court found that the district court complied with the IDEA's procedural requirements and, moreover, if any defects existed, they did not rise to the level of denying plaintiff a lost educational opportunity. In regards to plaintiff's substantive claim, the court analyzed the Michael F. factors and concluded that plaintiff received a FAPE. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "R. P. v. Alamo Heights Indep Sch Dist" on Justia Law

Homeowners, who were represented by the Mostyn Law Firm, filed claims against State Farm in Texas state court after Hurricane Ike. State Farm removed several cases to federal court on diversity grounds. The Firm and State Farm then entered into an agreement whereby the Firm promised to abandon its clients' claims against individual adjusters and forgo suing them in the future in exchange for State Farm's promise not to remove any Hurricane Ike cases to federal court. At issue on appeal was whether the phrase "any Hurricane Ike cases," in a contract covering "all Hurricane Ike cases that either have been filed or will be filed in the future," encompassed class-action lawsuits. The court affirmed and agreed with the district court's conclusion that the negotiated contract covered all past, present, and future lawsuits filed by the Firm against State Farm on behalf of homeowners, as individuals or part of a class, whose properties were damaged during Hurricane Ike. View "Horn, et al v. State Farm Lloyds" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity from plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 excessive-force and state-law claims. The district court denied summary judgment, concluding that there were issues of material fact as to whether the force used by the officers was clearly excessive and objectively unreasonable. Under the applicable law, the court had no jurisdiction to review a district court's determination that there were genuine disputes of fact where the court had decided, as a matter of law, that those factual issues were material. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and dismissed the appeal. View "Newman v. Guedry, et al" on Justia Law

This case arose when First Investment entered into a series of shipbuilding contracts with FSIGC and Mawei (collectively, the "Fujian Entities"). First Investment alleged that the Fujian Entities breached the contracts by refusing to honor an option agreement. On appeal, First Investment appealed the district court's decision to deny confirmation of a foreign arbitral award against the Fujian Entities and the People's Republic of China. At issue was whether a court could dismiss a petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award for lack of personal jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The court concluded that the district court's dismissal of the petition on personal jurisdiction grounds was appropriate. The court also concluded that the district court properly dismissed the People's Republic of China for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "First Invst Corp. of the Marshall Islands v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, Ltd, et al" on Justia Law

This appeal involved claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. Santander, a consumer finance company, was found by a jury to have negligently failed to comply with the law by promptly investigating plaintiff's credit dispute with Santander and to correct the information Santander misreported to a credit agency. On appeal, Santander contended that plaintiff did not offer legally sufficient evidence of his various claimed items of damage; plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages; and the district court improperly admitted letters from third parties to plaintiff. The court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment. View "Smith v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants pleaded guilty to defrauding health-care insurers by billing for pain injections that they never administered. Defendants appealed the district court's order that they pay over $43 million in restitution to 32 victims defrauded by the scheme. The court concluded that the record did not support the entire restitution amount recommended and therefore the district court abused its discretion in adopting the unsupported figure. The court held, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply a restitution credit. Accordingly, the court vacated the order of restitution and remanded for recalculation. As defendants' plea agreements stipulated to a forfeiture money judgment in the same amount as the restitution award, the court also vacated the amount of the forfeiture award and remanded for recalculation. The court further held that the government did not breach the plea agreements with defendants. View "United States v. Sharma" on Justia Law

This case involved three consolidated lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who challenged the lawfulness of various ordinances enacted by the City of New Orleans regulating that city's taxicab industry. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on their claim that sections 162-59 and 162-321 of the Municipal Code effected a regulatory taking. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's order insofar as it granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of these sections. The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in connection with all aspects of plaintiffs' impairment of contract claim. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would be irreparably injured by the denial of an injunction. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order insofar as it denied plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Upgrade Ordinances. View "Melancon, et al v. City of New Orleans, et al" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals arose from the district court's appointment of a receiver of Jeffrey Baron's personal property and entities he owned or controlled. Barron and Munish Krishan formed a joint venture involving the ownership and sale of internet domain names. Disputes arose between the venturers, resulting in at least seven lawsuits. The district court subsequently sought to stop Baron's practice of regularly firing one lawyer and hiring a new one. Baron appealed the receivership order and almost every order entered by the district court thereafter. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the appointment of the receiver was an abuse of discretion. Numerous motions and a writ of mandamus to overturn the bankruptcy court's striking of notices of appeal to the district court were also before the court. Most were denied as moot and the court addressed the remaining motions that were relevant. View "Netsphere Inc., et al v. Baron" on Justia Law

Gallagher provided insurance-related services throughout the country. Its subsidiary, GBSI, handled Gallagher's employee-benefit insurance programs. In November 2003, GBSI purchased Babcock Consulting, a business owned by Clayton L. Babcock. In this diversity suit, Gallagher and GBSI (collectively, "plaintiffs") sought money damages for breach of restrictive employment agreements under Louisiana law. The court affirmed the district court's directed verdict on the breach of competition agreement, but set aside the damages. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence on the issue of damages. The court vacated the award of attorneys' fees, leaving the ultimate award to be decided on remand. View "Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al v. Babcock, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of attempting to evade or defeat a tax; four counts of willful failure to file a tax return; and one count of attempting to interfere with the administration of internal revenue laws. Defendant appealed. Although the court granted defendant's motion to reconsider the clerk's denial of his motion to extend the time for filing a reply and allowed the brief to be submitted to the court, the court nevertheless concluded that the district court did not err in any respect. Because the court held that there were no merits to any of defendant's substantive points, and because the court held that the statute of limitations accrued from the last evasive act under 26 U.S.C. 6531(2), the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Irby, Jr." on Justia Law